Lazy8 wrote: 
The Wikepedia Overpopulation page has a nice discussion and summation of the various arguments and positions put forth by population optimists and pessimists.  I for one don't share L8's optimism.  Even if we could never approach planetary capacity, getting close enough seems to be bringing on (or will bring on) issues such as food insecurity and others that make this planet inhospitable for way too many people. 

ScottN wrote:
That question has been asked for decades, but the people who are most passionate about answering have only wrong answers. Every population alarmist has been wrong on just about everything: long-term growth rates, the ability of food production to keep up, the dystopian futures they predicted.

Yes, many people thought that. They were wrong. They're still wrong. the sky hasn't fallen and isn't about to. The more we understand about population dynamics the less we worry about it.

 ScottN wrote: 
Who has the most children? Religious people? 

Bam! Next question!  

 ScottN wrote: 
Because we can't talk about this elephant in the room seriously for long before someone decides that anyone advocating population control is advocating a Nazi eugenics program. Yes, the simple fact of the matter is that there are too many humans using/demanding too many resources and continued growth is utterly unsustainable.

 oldslabsides wrote:In spades.  My occasional Q:  Why has not overpopulation been part of the cultural/political dialogue for even longer than global warming!  Our planet passed its carrying capacity, in many people's opinion, after WWII.  A great majority of the world's problems, imo, have their root cause in over population.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Do you know where I can get one? Are they IOS compatible?

 miamizsun wrote: 
I would think a simple examination of population growth statistics would suffice.

 miamizsun wrote: 
Yes. Yes, I can. I've visited the factory.

i've heard that india is a baby making machine

can anyone confirm this? 

 kurtster wrote: 
thanks - I just put disc 1 in my NF Q - also disc 1 of The Invaders. 

 kurtster wrote: 
Wow.

 shmgeggie wrote: 

 shmgeggie wrote: 

 JrzyTmata wrote: 

Then there would be the lawsuits.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 

Agreed.......lol

 shmgeggie wrote: 
GENIUS!

All we need to do is change the human genome to make us all really really tiny, like a foot tall or so. Then we'd use way fewer resources. Cats will be a problem, though. My brilliant plan might just work if we all carry laser pointers to distract the cats.

 aflanigan wrote: 
Telling someone you don't even know to encourage their child to adopt rather than have a child is beyond your prevue, IMO. That's what I was referring to. You're the one who (IMO, ridiculously) brought eugenics into this. I hope one day that my daughter will choose to have children, too. Eugenics has zero to do with that hope. Being a grandmother has everything to do with it. And you, dear Rpeep, have zip, nada, bubpkis to do with it, ever.

 MsJudi wrote: 

No, I'm not an eugenicist.  I think eugenics is a misguided philosophy based on dubious science and prone to serious ethical abuses.  I would be very wary of governments, or politicians, promoting policies intended to advance the human race through selective breeding.

 hippiechick wrote: 

That's probably the wisest course.